"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
> Again, depends on your point of view which change will "downsize the
> abilities of a system". Considering that the semantics have been what
cygwin is "the system" and bash is a utility. Eliminating a feature of
cygwin without creating any new ones is "downsizing the abilities of a
system." Changing bash is changing something outside the system that
many of us seldom, if ever, use.
> not be supported, if this is indeed the way to support them. I'm merely
> questioning whether the current change is not trading one for the other. In
Nope. Software running on top of cygwin is still quite capable of
changing the capitalization of files. No functionality is lost with this
change.
> the same flavor as your suggestion to modify "mv" to make it work as it did
> in the context of your change, what's wrong with modifying "ln" to handle
> hard links while "mv" and perhaps even cygwin remain as they have always
> been? Wouldn't making a change to "mv" necessitate a change to "cp" as
> well? What about other utilities??? This doesn't seem to me to be in line
> with the goal of Cygwin.
I wasn't aware that "cp" could traditionally be used to rename files? Or
are you saying something else entirely? I don't see how the change is
applicable to "cp."
> the release. It seems to me like it has the potential to be yet another
> "text vs binary" debate. I'm not interested in seeing such debates
Indeed, and just like the "text vs. binary" thing, it's not something
that can be changed within cygwin without loss of functionality.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/
President Clinton was acquitted; then again, so was O. J. Simpson.
*** NEWBIES: Limit signatures to four lines! No HTML mail or posts! ***
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com